It's Official Canada has adopted Nordic Model Prostitution Law
- Thread starter jons242
- Start date
I guess its better not take lessons of diplomatic conduct with the very Honorable Prime Minister of Canada Mister Stephen Harper ????
Regards all
I think that goes without saying. I know Australia has legal brothels. I think New Zealand is where it has been completely decriminalized?
Prostitution is legal in Australia, but different provinces have different regulations. I also found that Harper comment weird. But it was not in Australia; it was the Australian PM visiting Canada. I think it's just a way of indirectly telling Australia not to get involved in the debate.
Another point about this bill is that it would also make porn technically illegal, unless it's done and distributed for free. It would be illegal to pay someone for sex anywhere, under any circumstances. There is nothing that says it will be legal if there is a camera running. Of course, they probably won't enforce it like that at present, but it opens the door for further bans and restrictions down the road. This law is a tool that could be used to ban just about anything. Like their bill on cyberbullying it has powers that go way beyond it's stated goal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/11/bill-c36-magazines-sex-shops_n_5481477.html
The debate on C-36 in the House of Commons is supposed to be today and/or tomorrow. The NPD is already against, but I'm curious to see where the liberals will stand. MacKay is hoping to have the bill sent to Committee for the summer break.
Another point about this bill is that it would also make porn technically illegal, unless it's done and distributed for free. It would be illegal to pay someone for sex anywhere, under any circumstances. There is nothing that says it will be legal if there is a camera running. Of course, they probably won't enforce it like that at present, but it opens the door for further bans and restrictions down the road. This law is a tool that could be used to ban just about anything. Like their bill on cyberbullying it has powers that go way beyond it's stated goal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/11/bill-c36-magazines-sex-shops_n_5481477.html
The debate on C-36 in the House of Commons is supposed to be today and/or tomorrow. The NPD is already against, but I'm curious to see where the liberals will stand. MacKay is hoping to have the bill sent to Committee for the summer break.
Also, the law will be in effect 30 days after it receives the royal thumbs up. That will give time to make plans. Right on times for Valentine's day maybe? 
The latest poll shows that the Canadian public does not generally approve of the bill:
http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ARG-C-36-Prostitution-June-2014.pdf
On the other hand, the poll also shows that women are much less likely than men to support the legalization of both buying and selling sex... so the Tories are likely hoping that the law will help them improve their poor numbers among women voters.
http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ARG-C-36-Prostitution-June-2014.pdf
On the other hand, the poll also shows that women are much less likely than men to support the legalization of both buying and selling sex... so the Tories are likely hoping that the law will help them improve their poor numbers among women voters.
I'm not an expert on survey, but I don't think the split is very dramatic (40% vs 50%, plus 10% undecided).
What is striking is people with higher education are much more in favor of legalitsation and oppose the law.
However, I would be curious to know how many of the people polled actually READ the bill and understand it. Also, the government have another scientific poll that they are keeping secret.
Anyway, since when are we supposed to ask uninformed people how to manage an industry? This is not about getting the right solution for the problem. It's just politic, but even their base is not happy with this bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/11/bill-c36-prostitution-peter-mackay_n_5484530.html
What is striking is people with higher education are much more in favor of legalitsation and oppose the law.
However, I would be curious to know how many of the people polled actually READ the bill and understand it. Also, the government have another scientific poll that they are keeping secret.
Anyway, since when are we supposed to ask uninformed people how to manage an industry? This is not about getting the right solution for the problem. It's just politic, but even their base is not happy with this bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/11/bill-c36-prostitution-peter-mackay_n_5484530.html
From what I read elsewhere, the Preamble doesn't matter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/10/prostitution-bill-conservatives-government-mackay_n_5479045.html
Selling is legal, therefore the prostitutes have constitutional rights. It doesn't matter what the preamble says. If selling is not criminal then it is a legal activity. If selling was fully criminalize that would be a completely different matter.
The SCC said screening clients was a vital tool and this law still prevents prostitutes from doing that. The preamble means the law is less arbitrary, but it does not mean that it is not overbroad and grossly-disproportionate.
The aim of the law has to be weighted with it's consequences. We know this kind of law results in more prostitutes being killed. Unless the government can prove that prostitution itself causes harms that are more important than the life of these people, then the law will fail. On one side you have ideology, without any factual support; on the other side you have life and death consequences that have already been acknowledged by the court.
If it was to be reviewed by the present-day SCC, I'm sure it would get destroyed right away (in ten years, who knows what the judges would decide?)
Once again, the argument hinges on the fact that prostitution is now a crime. But that's not true. Only half of it is a crime. The law still violates the constitutional rights of the legal half. The preamble changes the angle of a future challenge, but the bottom line is exactly the same.
Much as I am opposed to any law which limits the freedom of consenting adults, it is legal for an individual to buy a lottery ticket, but not to create one and sell it.
As this is far from the only example in which one half of a transaction is legal, the penalizing of buying only would not be grounds to invalidate the law.
As this is far from the only example in which one half of a transaction is legal, the penalizing of buying only would not be grounds to invalidate the law.
In your example, the lottery ticket is a regulated product, because lottery itself is a regulated activity. You need proper qualifications to run a lottery. Same with cigarettes, alcohol, medical operations, vehicles, etc.
Sex between adults is not a regulated activity. Anybody can do it and the government has no authority in people's sex lives.
By the way, the problem is not exactly with the fact that buying is illegal. The problem is that this pushes the legal half into clandestinity, where they are at higher risk of violence. If there was no ill effect on the seller, it would not invalidate the law.
Even people who don't like prostitution should be afraid of this law. If they can ban prostitution by simply claiming it is harmful to society, what's stopping them from doing the same with free sex next?
Sex between adults is not a regulated activity. Anybody can do it and the government has no authority in people's sex lives.
By the way, the problem is not exactly with the fact that buying is illegal. The problem is that this pushes the legal half into clandestinity, where they are at higher risk of violence. If there was no ill effect on the seller, it would not invalidate the law.
Even people who don't like prostitution should be afraid of this law. If they can ban prostitution by simply claiming it is harmful to society, what's stopping them from doing the same with free sex next?
Correct. Or banning alcohol or banning cigarettes ? How about banning alcohol advertising too ?
The very special ideology is that it's not the sex activity that is dangerous. It's the *selling* of it that is dangerous to the seller. Doing sex for any other reason is acceptable. Selling any other kind of legal activity is fine, no matter how degrading.
The only reason they can get away with this is that people are already programmed to believe it. It was the same with homosexuality. Once people understood that it was not dangerous or contagious it was accepted pretty quickly. Prohibition is bound to lose in the end, because they cannot shame sex workers into silence the way they could before.
The only reason they can get away with this is that people are already programmed to believe it. It was the same with homosexuality. Once people understood that it was not dangerous or contagious it was accepted pretty quickly. Prohibition is bound to lose in the end, because they cannot shame sex workers into silence the way they could before.
I know, but for political reasons they can't say it directly anymore. That's why they have to pretend to believe in these crazy ''modern'' arguments. They can't use religion as a reason, but they can sell it as part of the healing process. Religion is one thing that is definitely ok to commodify. Personnally, I don't see why people pay for bibles when you can get free ones in hotel rooms.
Similar threads
